A Slightly-Softer Microsoft Shared Source License 359
RadBlock writes "Microsoft Watch has a story on a recent change in Microsoft's shared-source licensing... I guess the main difference is that programmers do not have to send back any changes made to the source code. But they can't combine any of the Microsoft code with other software. Here's the full text of their new license agreement." The article claims that Microsoft is "inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL" with these license tweaks, but it doesn't look that way to me.
Do you get all the source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
This EULA doesn't sound like legalease. I really doubt this is a MS license. I've tried to find a shared source ASP.NET distro to verify but to no avail.
Can anyone vouch for this being authentic?
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
This is interesting, could this be an statement on software patents? Or do they want to know if the software is patentable, then they want to be able to take patent action?
Slashdot effect protection (Score:2, Interesting)
Is The 'Soft Going Soft on Open Source?
By Mary Jo Foley
Microsoft's newest shared source license seems to be inching closer -- at least in spirit -- to the GNU GPL.
The open-source faithful have been harsh critics of Microsoft's shared source licensing plan and justifiably so. They have claimed that Microsoft has attempted to ride the coattails of the GNU General Public License (GPL), while simultaneously slamming the GPL as contaminating everything in its path.
Even some of Microsoft's own employees, such as David Stutz, the former Microsoft manager in charge of Microsoft's Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) Shared Source program, have expressed frustration with Microsoft's licensing rhetoric.
One More Time: Stutz's 'Sanitized' Goodbye Note [synthesist.net]
But is there a case to be made that Redmond is slowly but surely learning from its past mistakes?
Exhibit No. 1: Instead of trying to blur the lines between open source and shared source, this week, Microsoft is presenting (against a back drop of open-source protest) its shared source program as an "alternative" to the GPL at the Washington, D.C. e-Government pow-wow on open standards and open source.
Check Out the e-Government Agenda Here [egovos.org]
Exhibit No. 2: With no fanfare, the company recently has added a new shared source licensing option to its stable that removes some (but definitely not all of the more onerous licensing clauses from Microsoft's contracts.
The new license -- called simply, the "ASP .Net Starter Kit License" -- is much streamlined and simplified, weighing in at a single page in length. Under the licensing terms, developers and users are permitted to download the ASP .Net Starter Kit source code for free, to develop on and around the code and redistribute it, commercially or internally, without paying Microsoft any royalties.
ASP .Net Starter Kit licensees do not need to return to Microsoft any changes they make to the code, Microsoft execs say. Under the GPL license, developers are obligated to submit back to the community any changes they make to the code base.
But don't start thinking that The 'Soft has gone soft on open source. There is wording in the ASP .Net Starter Kit license that prevents developers or customers from GPLing the Microsoft code, according to Microsoft execs.
"You are not allowed to combine or distribute the (ASP .Net Starter Kit) Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge," reads Microsoft's new license.
For the Whole Text of the New License, Click Here [microsoft-watch.com]
What's your take? Do you think Microsoft is genuinely interested in adopting some of the positives from the open source model? Or is the company hiding behind seemingly more liberal terms and conditions? Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and give me your two cents.
HA! I got FUD on my pants. (Score:3, Interesting)
* If the licensee includes any amount of GPL code in another program, that entire program becomes subject to the terms of the GPL.
This third restriction often is called a "viral" clause, because it causes the GPL to "infect" any future software that incorporates GPL code, whether or not the developer intended that result. This even applies to software not in existence at the time the license was drafted. It should be pointed out that there are many OSS licenses, most of which do not include GPL-style restrictions and do not tell licensees how they must license their own innovations. This anti-commercial philosophy is rejected by much of the OSS community.
Interesting. I thought that the 'OSS community' was all about an 'anti-commercial philosophy'.
But I just want a cool OS....
Re:Almost exactly wrong. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems fair to me. Every action the FSF has taken, including the creation of the GPL in the first place, has shown contempt for Microsoft's business model.
looks open-source-ish to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The real question, however, is whether any interesting software will be shipped under this license. Rotor, for example, still comes with the "non-commercial-only" license (here [microsoft.com]).
If this is one of several shared source licenses they have but they don't use it for anything interesting, then it's just a PR ploy. Of course, I have a hard time thinking of what kind of open source software I would want from Microsoft anyway: none of the stuff they have is of much interest to me.
Re:BSD? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to me that the new shared source code license is a viral license. At least I can't think of any other way to interpret the third condition.
It seems that Microsoft likes BSD license only in one-directional way: BSD license is good when others write code but not when they write it. That's kind of like the one-directional way most people like taxes: it's bad when you have to pay them but great if other people's tax money covers your own expenses.
Re:Absolutely one step closer! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Inching closer? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it's right to say they're moving closer. In the same way Dubya's moving closer to Iraq.
Microsoft isn't interested in being open (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft only has a few specific goals here:
1. To distract anyone considering OSS and make them feel like there is a viable alternative from a single accountable entity. (Something that most OSS has a little trouble providing)
2. To disrupt the OSS community and have them focus more on the licenses than the code, which could have a double ended result: code forking and migration of the less "devout" to shared source.
3. To distract people from where they are headed next. I think this is the biggest reason because I think you will see the Windows code base released within the next few years with very few strings attached. Why? I must draw from Neal Stephenson's wonderful essay "In the Beggining, there was Command Line" to explain:
As software technologies progress and functionality expands, older software loses value. To the point where it is eventually worth-less. Hence, it can be free (as in beer and in parts, as in speech). Why would they do this? I think Microsoft is getting ready to transition to many other technology markets as the products they develop have less value and relevance over time.
My bets:
*Data Storage Systems (Not just file systems, but transparent, intelligent data storage devices that do all the work for you: categorizing data in to types automatically, analyzing data usage and optimizing the store for nearly immediate access no matter how big the data set, etc...)
*Big Iron Replacement (Windows Datacenter is just the start. They want this to kill off UNIX, VMS and other OSes like them. The datacenter is where they want to be now.)
*Embedded Devices on a much grander scale than WinCE is capable of. The only thing the OS on these devices will have in common with Windows are the logo and a few graphics, but the code will be vastly different and run on completely new architectures. There wouldn't even be much point in calling it Windows anymore.
*Artificially "better" performing network protocols that embrace, extend and extinguish TCP/IP. They will tune TCP/IP and add new features in it that most users will want. But these features will break the TCP/IP standard. Sure it'll work with non-MS stuff. However, as it's always been, the MS stuff will just work so much better if it's all MS. The gains in performance will likely only be a little network "Reaganomics". Shift a little performance hit here or there to make something else look better. Think about how many people think that Windows XP is a better OS than previous versions of windows only based on boot time and time to load IE. Those are not significant factors folks! The same thing will apply here.
I say, we shouldn't let MS distract us too much, but we SHOULD keep a watchful eye on where we think they might be headed because the desktop isn't going to be enough to keep them alive in a few years.
Personally, I think one of the most important things that OSS should be focussing on is the improvement and extension of input devices, that's where the next technology war will be fought on the embedded device front. Because you sure as hell aren't going to have KB, mouse or even serial port on a computer embedded in you walls, floors and clothing.
License only for code samples (Score:4, Interesting)
Making Money (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft needs to sell its products. In the past,
I'm against big business as much as the next socialist, but I'm afraid Microsoft isn't my biggest worry right now. They're in the process of reform, cut them some slack and let them still make money, huh? Just be proud - they're afraid of OSS enough to do this whole reform thing.
Re:Making Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you may say that MS has every right to match competitors, that is the nature of capitalism, but please don't say MS is reforming, as if it is trying to be a more ethical mulit-billion dollar corporation. MS is and always has been driven by crushing competitors, and now it is trying to do the same with GPL and open source.
Re:Do you get all the source? (Score:3, Interesting)
They then wanted to do exactly this- compile it into a final product.
I don't know what Microsoft's reaction was to this.
- Serge Wroclawski